BOING !!! Greenland Is Rising Because Of Ice Loss

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
This may offend you as well, but a little depopulation may just be what this planet needs, and a good thing for our long term survival.

Such a hypocritical statement

Let's see..

This may offend you, but if it came to depopulation, I'd rather your family die than mine.

Now it's a problem for you, isn't it?

Depopulation doesn't seem to be a big problem in your world until you're directly affected. Isn't that right?

Those 200,000+ that died in the Indian Ocean tsunami..who cares? They weren't your family, so why should it matter?

But then, if your family is the victim, we should all care, right?

Put it this way - one of your close relatives dies from a natural disaster tomorrow that may have been the result of an unstable atmosphere due to human carelessness. You're obviously hurt, completely destroyed. Someone comes up to you and says "oh well, depopulation can be a good thing!"

Tell me what your reaction would be?

Next time, don't be so insensitive when you know damn well if the situation were reversed, you'd be as hypocritical as they come.

reply to post by AirWitch


You can post your thought's on this subject any way you want, but we don't need a woman's perspective on global warming. The fact that you have a vagina won't change our opinion about what you think, and claiming the existence of a fictional character like Mother Nature only detracts from your credibility.

You made a very valid point about the collapse of the Gulf Stream. A flood of fresh cold water into the convection current on a system as large as the Northern Trans-Atlantic system would be devastating to most of Europe.
You would see short Summers and very long winters.

Your point about an economic shift is spot on.
Europe will suffer a devastating climate change that will likely destroy the production of grain crops in what we now think of as the "Bread Basket" of that continent. It won't be a water shortage like many nations will feel from the loss of glacial run off, but many northern areas will suffer shorter growing seasons and an early killing frost in the first years of a collapsing Gulf Current.

Never sell yourself short, your post is one of the best ones in this thread so far.
You get three stars for that post.....

Life may spring from your womanly womb, but at this point in time you still need a male contribution to perpetuate the species. Part of what you espouse is the very thing that will keep humanity alive for one more generation.
It's people like you that secure our future.

Keep doing what you do and maintain you're ideals, the world needs more people like you.

EDIT: I was short one letter....

[edit on 4/11/2007 by anxietydisorder]

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
This may offend you, but if it came to depopulation, I'd rather your family die than mine.

Now it's a problem for you, isn't it?

It doesn't matter what you'd rather...

Those that are living in the right places, for the right reasons, in the right manner will survive.

Everyone else gets washed away, or otherwise plagued. Novus Ordo Mundi; So mote it be.


Sri Oracle

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
Those that are living in the right places, for the right reasons, in the right manner will survive.

And that makes it ok to call for and eagerly await the deaths of millions of innocent people for the pure selfish hypocritical views of a few, along with the rather sickening entertainment of those same few?

Jesus christ. I swear...there's something seriously wrong with people. Many of them on this very website. Maybe you guys are right to an extent. Maybe we all need to be wiped out, because some of the people that represent the human race are so pathetic and sad that it makes us all an embarrassment to the concept of life.

Just awful

Novus, you need to remember the primal rule of life: Survival of the Fittest.

I don't think anyone is talking about entertainment value here. We're just talking about the facts: too many people, causing too much pollution, and being too ignorant to realize the results. Greenland is melting and billions are going to die; that's all there is to it.

Are they innocent, ignorant, or just kept in the dark so they don't stampede?

Are they innocent or ignorant that most of them have to live in overpopulated, shanty cities, on the rising, Tsunami threatened seashores?

Innocent? Ignorant? I'm afraid that's not even part of this discussion.

But, yes, it's sad isn't it? Yes, it's awful. But, there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it.

Nature depopulates species all the time. So just remember, not all lemmings go off the cliff ... just the ones who are supposed to.

If you want to survive, then get out of the line for the cliff. It's your choice.

We've survived far worse according to this website. Look at the chart and the steep rise 8000 years ago. Besides, didn't Greenland used to be "green" a few thousand years ago anyway? I seem to recall a story about how Greenland had elephants (not Wooly Mammoths) and other sub-tropical flora and fauna.

Greenland Climate History

Even if Global Warming was as fast as some of the more extreme "doomsayers" say it is, doesn't it make sense that people will simply just have to move? Heck, if the Midwest US suddenly becomes a desert and we can't grow our crops anymore, I imagine we'll just have to invade Canada and take over their newly-formed "ideal" climates that have just "thawed" out!

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Xtrozero
...if all of it melted...

That is not what this thread is about.

What anxietydisorder was hoping for was to witness the entire Greenland ice sheet slipping into the ocean in a single, catastrophic event. (A very real possibility.)

Melt has little to do with what is being discussed here.

People talk about the desire to go back in time and witness earth changing events all the time.

Yet you think this is a bad thing, when put into the context of today.

Why?

Don't panic too soon.

Greenland's ice cap is resting in a basin, surrounded by a ring of mountains.

So what you could expect is another Club Mediterranean real estate area, where youngsters can duplicate and enjoy their water scooter rides.

In essence, the slow forming of worlds first gigantic fresh water holding "Atol".

Originally posted by AirWitch
Novus, you need to remember the primal rule of life: Survival of the Fittest.

Oh gee that line is so old..

Key word Primal this is 2007 not year 1000 AD. Its time to help your neighbor not to leave them to their fate. We're all gonna die one day anyway. So stop the silly survival of the fittest routine- its way outdated.

Originally posted by anxietydisorder

I don't have figures for the amount of land rise we'll see in places like Greenland or the Antarctic Continent, or what effect it will have on the geologic stability of the entire planet. I'm not a geologist.

If Greenland and Antarctica rise as the ice melts, won't that have an effect on equatorial regions and around the ring of fire ???
The results of such a massive movement in the crust at either end will certainly have global repercussions.

[edit on 3/11/2007 by anxietydisorder]

Don't worry about the upthrusting of the plate. These would be minor earthquakes as there would be no built up energy as large earthquakes have.

What a person really has to worry about is the new weight of water from the sea level rise. It's not a pressure thing but a force thing. A column of 10 cubic feet of water will weight around 640 pounds. Extrapolate this out over stretches of the ocean above fault regions and now you have a problem. Expect large earthquakes and volcanoes in the ring of fire region to develop more fairly quick.

Back to the thread on Greenland gaining new heights....

Originally posted by AirWitch
Novus, you need to remember the primal rule of life: Survival of the Fittest.

I doubt I'll get a straight answer out of this question. You'll probably dodge it. But I'll ask anyway: Would you sacrifice your family for the sake of the planet?

Of course you wouldn't, because you're a hypocrite. You think others should die, while your family survives, even though you may be polluting more than one of the victims.

Originally posted by AirWitch
I don't think anyone is talking about entertainment value here.

Wanting to see such a thing is entertainment value.

It's like saying "I want to see a nuclear bomb go off in New York City!"

Same damn thing, just a different means of killing people.

Originally posted by AirWitch
We're just talking about the facts: too many people, causing too much pollution,

I may be incorrect on the exact number, but it's around this - about 70% of the planet hasn't been TOUCHED by humans. 70%.

Think of what this planet has been through. The asteroid impacts, the ice ages, all the volcanoes and earthquakes, hurricanes, wars etc.

Really..what impact are we making?

Originally posted by AirWitch
Greenland is melting and billions are going to die; that's all there is to it.

Yes so lets all celebrate. Billions are going to die and we're going to get to witness it!! WOOO!!

Pathetic

Originally posted by AirWitch
Nature depopulates species all the time.

Good. We all deserve to be wiped out. As I said, we're a disgrace to the concept of life.

Saying nature depopulates all the time and actually hoping for it to happen so you can see it are two completely different things.

Originally posted by AirWitch
just the ones who are supposed to.

You people are absolutely pathetic. I don't care if I get a warning for that either. You're an absolute disgrace.

You sit on your computers talking about how we need to change the planet, yet you're not doing a damn thing about it. So to make up for your lack of motivation to make change, your only solution is killing off billions of innocent people, all the while being a hypocrite. You don't have a problem with everyone else dying, but when it involves you or your family, then it's a problem.

I don't know how you people can live with yourselves. You're sad individuals.

[edit on 11/4/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Would you also consider it hypocritical if I said the world desperately needs depopulation, even if that includes me dying? Fact is, we all die. You could die in ten seconds from now or 10 decades (depending on your current age and medical technological advances).

The point is, none of us are guaranteed the next second, let alone the next year or decade.

Beautifully disastrous events don't come around very often. It is not to revel in the death of any life, but the magnificence of nature and the universe. I would like to witness a supernova, that doesn't mean I want to watch an inhabited planet be destroyed.

Why don't those who take the op and supporters desires out of context fight against the destruction of other life? Are you all vegans? If not, you are saying it is ok to bring life onto this planet just to destroy it. Those cows, pigs, chickens wouldn't be born if not to be raised in a controlled environment just to be slaughtered when it isn't necessary; since we can gain all the nourishment we need through other means. You are passive when it comes to destruction of things YOU think you require ... so it is ok. Well, it isn't. If it wasn't for us 'supreme' humans, these animals would be living a full life and natural birth rates. They would live and die by the land, something which most of you have no idea about.

I think that is hypocritical ... and this isn't just for Novus, and I understand where people who believe different from me come from ... that takes intelligence ... which others need to use more of what they have instead of just jumping to the most extreme conclusion from a statement to make a point valid. It may work in a debate, but not when you are trying to relate to someone and help them understand your point. Aggression rarely wins someone over; if you punch me in the face, I am less likely to agree with you than if you gave me a hug and talked to me like an equal.

Point is, we destroy plant and animal life, some even do it as a recreation. We kill ourselves through wars and weapons and disease, instead of being diplomatic and solving things like the logical, intellectual beings you make the point out that we are.

Death is never a fun, enjoyable, or celebrated thing, plant or animal life (and humans are animals too), but things happen, it is the natural way of things. If an asteroid hits, it will be beautiful, even if it lands on my head ... I will be watching it all the way, since I would die anyway ... my last visions will be grand, and those far enough away to see it and find the beauty in it ... at least someone else will have a beautiful memory of my death, instead of being found bloated in a sewer or some other horrible way to go.

There is no need to act high and mighty, we are all the same and equal, a little more understanding of each other and trying to see from another's viewpoint is a virtue we all should have and share ... if we all thought the same, that would be quite a drab and drawn out life, but if we all tried to respect other's perspectives, even if we don't agree, the world can be lively and fun.

6 billion people are too many for planet earth. If we could migrate elsewhere, that would help ... but our advances in space travel and colonization has been quite the standstill since the 70s. The earth will control the population itself if we don't ... well, it is just natural. It is OUR fault for living on the coast ... not the tsunami, sea level rising, or any other weather/natural pattern. I see this every year in FL. People live on the beach because it is beautiful, but then they complain when the beach erodes from storms and waves (caused by NE winds) and ask for billions of dollars in tax money to build the sand back up. Ridiculous. That is nature taking its course. Coastlines are not permanent and neither are mountains, islands, ice, anything. Our axis in our revolution around the sun isn't permanent. Our rotation, speed through space isn't. Our magnetic poles definitely are not. Wake up. It may be horrible that life must die, but, why not appreciate what happens when it does; you can be awed by an event AND still mourn for those that have loss.

Do not a lot of people watch the towers falling over and over ... awed by how two 1200 ft tall building fell even though people are dying? They don't have disrespect for those who lost their lives or their families, but they are still awestruck by the whole event. Is 3000 less meaningful than 3000000000? Not to me, neither is 3. I think all the people dying, u.s. and middle eastern is sad ... soldier and innocent bystander. I have compassion for them all. I am not one of these donkeys that think 1 u.s. is worth more than any other nor vice versa; each human holds equal value and worth, homeless or rich, gay or straight, regardless of intelligence, ancestry, age, past or future ... we are all born and all die, all bleed, all feel pain, all cry.

Do you ever watch history channel? or study anything historical? Are you awed by a catastrophe? Are those who died less important because it was a century or more in the past? Is it only people that may die in the future worth your concern? Well, it is a fact that everyone now living will soon be dead, whether in a minute or a century ... it is inevitable.

If someone would be awed by the event in the future, why is it such a bad thing to have the awareness to appreciate it as it happens? Doesn't make you morbid, it makes you lucid.

People die. It is sad people die. Amazing things happen. It is beautiful when amazing things happen. They aren't mutually exclusive ... and I am dynamic enough to feel both at the same time. I can feel more than one emotion, I can think more than one thing at once. I am not that simple to only feel remorse for a loss or only be shocked/captivated by a visual.

I would hope some would understand more with this and not be too stubborn.

A prior poster is right, if the Greenland sheet slides off ... well, welcome the ice age. The sea level may go up temporarily (what? 10-20 ft?), but it will go back down, and most likely much more so. Just think, it would be a great time for discovery and archeology ...

If people stay where they freeze, starve, drown. Isn't it their own fault? I would consider it my own fault if I did as such.

two points

the 'basin' suggested by LaBTop
earthquakes & volcanos suggested by hinky


a great portion of western canada is still rebounding upwards
from the last gacial sheets of ice...satellites that measure minute
changes in gravity reveal that most of Canada is itself in a 'basin'

the quick upward rise of Greenland will (if we use Canada as a model)
most likely slow down in time,
if interested here's a link to a page of the geoscape we will probably witness as the ice sheets melt/recede in Greenland....
the link is of Canada's landscape sculpted appox 10,000 years ago-to-present.
link: geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca...



isn't Greenland itself sitting above a 'hot spot', and that's why there's geysers, volcanos all over the place? let's think along the lines of Greeland
being similar to Yellowstone in the USA.

Let's ask if it's the global warming of the air and a change in the winds
that is causing the faster than expected melt off of the Ice...
~or is the ground itself heating up to melt the glaciers from below??

perhaps the combination of hotter temperatures of the air and the underlying strata are causing the rapid melt off, and causing the landmass to spring upward faster than expected.
I think the standard model is that at a 'hot spot' the molten mantle is closer to the surface of the earth's crust (there's a dome of magma)
and as the crust which is Greenland rises- -so to does the 'hot spot'
........so i would imagine that we should see more and more undersea volcanos develop all around Greenland.
........which would have a greater and more immediate effect on the gulf-stream current, and possibly cause europe to get even more warming temperatures year round, & more rainfall, etc

what a real life, real time labratory for the scientists to have !
it even excites me & i'm not interested in geology and stuff

If the Hopi Indian tale of this being the fourth time man will have vanished to only come back once again, than what's so wrong with contemplating a depopulation event. Some one has to witness the end and remember it for the next great biblical writing. Life, like an idea, is not that easy to extinguish in this world. I would try to save myself and my family in such an event. I also would attempt to save others in my local if they could not save themselves. But in that, if one refuses to believe such an event can happen, than how would that one know what to do in order to save themselves. So being offended and slammed and gasp in horror and write negative responses about some one delivering what maybe a true event scenario, propose what you would do when the time comes.......

I see some feel there mortality is to sacred to discuss there inner personal desire to face the truth when/if such a catastrophic event were to suddenly erupt. Relax, your time is not yours to decide when death points you out.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Would you also consider it hypocritical if I said the world desperately needs depopulation, even if that includes me dying?

What I consider hypocritical is people suggesting depopulation is a good thing, but these same people will be the first to bitch and moan when one of their family or friends is a statistic in this depopulation.

It's ok to want others to die, but when it affects you, now it's a problem. Is that not hypocritical?

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
The point is, none of us are guaranteed the next second, let alone the next year or decade.

That doesn't mean you hope for a huge disaster that'll kill millions simply because you want to witness it.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Those cows, pigs, chickens wouldn't be born if not to be raised in a controlled environment just to be slaughtered when it isn't necessary; since we can gain all the nourishment we need through other means. You are passive when it comes to destruction of things YOU think you require ... so it is ok.

I don't eat meat, so this doesn't apply to me.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
If it wasn't for us 'supreme' humans, these animals would be living a full life and natural birth rates. They would live and die by the land, something which most of you have no idea about.

I agree completely, but again, I'm not one of those that contributes to that. I've never ate meat. I have an issue with eating things that used to be alive.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
6 billion people are too many for planet earth.

We haven't even touched half the planet yet. How is it too much?

There's too many people gathered in small areas. If we all spread out, things will improve.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
The earth will control the population itself if we don't ... well, it is just natural.

And I have no problem with that, even if I'm one of the victims, because we beat up this planet, so it's only fair we get what we deserve. But suggesting such a thing for the pure joy of seeing it, or suggesting that those in power should regulate the population, that's absolutely wrong.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
It may be horrible that life must die, but, why not appreciate what happens when it does; you can be awed by an event AND still mourn for those that have loss.

Because you're viewing it from an outsider's perspective. You people are assuming one of your loved ones won't be involved. If you had someone involved, you wouldn't be in awe about the event. You'd be too distraught to comprehend anything about the event until months or years later.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Do not a lot of people watch the towers falling over and over ... awed by how two 1200 ft tall building fell even though people are dying?

And this proves my above point, because they are viewing it from an outsiders perspective. Do you think the victims families sit on their computers and watch that video over and over?

No way.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
each human holds equal value and worth, homeless or rich, gay or straight, regardless of intelligence, ancestry, age, past or future ... we are all born and all die, all bleed, all feel pain, all cry.

I agree

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Do you ever watch history channel? or study anything historical? Are you awed by a catastrophe?

Yes I watch it occasionally. It depends on what you mean by "awed"? If you mean do I think it's cool and looks cool and that's all that matters, no. If you mean am I amazed at what can happen, at times, yes. But I never hope for such things simply so I can witness it.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Are those who died less important because it was a century or more in the past?

Not at all

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Is it only people that may die in the future worth your concern?

In a way, yes. It doesn't mean I think people in the past are less worthy of concern, but it's impossible to change the past. It's possible to divert a future event.

Again, that's not to say that people back then are less important, but if I had to choose, I'd rather try to save people from an event in my lifetime, which is the complete opposite of wanting to witness a catastrophic event.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Well, it is a fact that everyone now living will soon be dead, whether in a minute or a century ... it is inevitable.

Obviously. But that's no excuse to want something terrible to happen so you can see it.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
If people stay where they freeze, starve, drown. Isn't it their own fault? I would consider it my own fault if I did as such.

What if they can't leave? What if they are like the poor families that lived along the levies in New Orleans who didn't have the financial resources to get out of there? Simply because they are less fortunate financially, does that mean they deserve to be wiped out?

Originally posted by jpm1602
The suicide boats in Revelations can't be very far behind.

Can you please elaborate on this? I was unable to find anything about this in a google search.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
6 billion people are too many for planet earth.

We haven't even touched half the planet yet. How is it too much?

There's too many people gathered in small areas. If we all spread out, things will improve.

it doesnt matter how spread out we are.
it takes just 2 men to destroy the planet, for us. (Nuclear war)

There appear to be a few nasty thinking people in this forum. I hope you bastards don't reproduce or a t least are the first to die. I am a southern hemisphere nasty person, but I will last longer than any of you.

OK Greenland was once green and fertile with farmers and animals etc. It started changing and the people left. I don't know what happen to all the animals but the continent went ice age on them. Well whats wrong with it going back to green. We are still coming out of a miny ice age right now. Everybody's freaking out because we're warming up, but that's what this planet does. It has climate change and we're just on it for the ride.

Its just a coincidence that when the planet started to warm up, again, it was soon after the industrial revolution. There was a minnie ice age around 16**, which would have ended by the early, mid eighteenth century (when the industrial revolution occurred).

We, as a planet, are in an interglacial period. The last ice age (real ice age) ended 10,000 years ago and from what i can gather, we are heading into another big one. this is in a relatively short geological time (several millennia). Small bumps in the temperature are normal for an interglacial and should not be over egsadurated.